Lord Melville was the go-between, and, one would think, that he must know, that his lordship was the originator of the negotiation, which, indeed, he does not deny, but only says, that the proposition made to Mr. Pitt originated entirely with Mr. Addington himself; but, he is very careful not to assert, that this proposition was made by Mr. Addington to Mr. Pitt, or that it was made, either directly or indirectly, before Lord Melville opened the subject to Mr. Addington. Such an evasive statement is unworthy of the partizan of Mr. Pitt, especially when its object is to fix the charge of direct and premeditated falsehood on a man, with whom, be he what he may, Mr. Fitt was willing to share the powers of the state.

As to the 2d point, on which the assertions of these writers are opposed to each other, it does appear, that, Lord Grenville was mentioned, at least, by Mr. Pitt, as one of those whom he intended to introduce into the Cabinet. Such introduction was not, the Accurate Observer states, a sinc qua non," which I can very well believe, for Mr. Pitt has generally too much prudence to make declarations that have any thing definite in them; but, that, if he took an office himself, he would endeavour to have Lord Grenville with him, there can remain little doubt in the mind of any man, who, for a moment, considers, how desirable, and, indeed, how necessary, it would have been, to break up, or at least, cut asunder, the new opposition, the successful opposers of that peace, which was, at the time the Cabinet negotiation was going on, just about to terminate in a new and most vexatious and distressing war. Whether Lord Grenville would have been led over, in this manner, was another question; and, a question, which, I positively assert have been safely answered in the negative. Of this, however, the ministers were not certain; and, though the silencing of Lord Grenville, and with him the most formidable part of opposition in the House of Lords, was an object for which they would, probably, have made almost any sacrifice of national dignity or interest, yet the personal humiliation of themselves, which such a step would have produced, was what they appear to have been resolved never to conseut to. Therefore they insisted, as a preliminary, that Lord Grenville should not be brought amongst them; and, as Mr. Pitt would make no stipulations of this sort, previous to his being called upon by the King, the negotiation was put an end to. There does not seem to be any thing in the difference of statement, as to this point, that can be fairly said to fix the charge of falsehood

or misrepresentation on the Near Observer, who says, that the negotiation broke off

upon the positive unalterable demand of "Mr. Pitt to bring back with him the "Lords Grenville and Spencer;" and, his opponent says, that Mr. Pitt, having named the Lords Grenville and Spencer as persons whom he should propose, and having been asked by Mr. Addington to consent to a preliminary stipulation that Lord Grenville should not be brought back, refused to enter into any stipulation at all, and that, thereupon the negotiation was broken off. It may not be rigidly correct to describe this as a po. "sitive and unalterable demand on the part "of Mr. Pitt, to bring back the Lords "Grenville and Spencer;" but, I am satisfied, that not one person out of ten will regard this description as false; and, if there has been, or is, any misrepresentation as to the fact, it is really, in my opinion, to be attributed to the indefinite manner, in which Mr. Pitt is said to have stated the terms, on which he was ready to make part of the proposed coalition. He did not, says his advocate, make the return of Lord Grenville a

sine qua non. Why did he not? He would say nothing specifically, as to arrangements, till after he had been called upon to submit his ideas to the King. And why would he not? And, who can blame Mr. Addington for suspecting the worst. All that Mr. Pitt could be brought to say was, that, he should

66

propose an administration consisting principally of the present and late govern "ments," and all that Mr. Addington could possibly discover, was, that his dear Pylades intended to take the far greater part of bis power away from him, without thanking him for it; which intention, especially if the subject were, as it appears to have been, first broached to Mr. Addington by Lord Melville, was certainly such as no man could have patiently beheld, much less have suf fered to be executed, and even have been himself instrumental in executing.

The points in dispute between Messrs. Addington and Pitt are, after all, less inte resting to the public than are the facts re lative to the disposition of Lords Grenville and Spencer. Both the writers, whose pamphlets it is my object to analyse and compare, have refrained from stating to their readers, whether, or not, these noblemen had consented to be included in the projected new, or, rather, patched up adininistration. A stranger to the political history of the time alluded to, would, however, believe. that they had so consented; for, to those who see through no other medium than the Near Observer and his opponent, the Lords

Grenville and Spencer must appear as "lords "in waiting," ready to enter any when, any where, any way, and for any purpose, that Messrs. Fitt and Addington might agree upon. The advocate of Mr. Pitt does, indeed, in speaking of these lords, make use of an hypothetical phrase: "if they assented," Mr. Pitt stated, that he should include them. But, every one knows, that such phrases are mere expletives, introduced to give an air of decency to the proposition, in exactly the same way, and for the same purpose, that a minister, in presenting to the Commons a vote of credit, states, that,

if the house should assent to it," the distribution of the money will be made agreeably to the estimate.' This phrase, therefore, as applied to the proposal relative to Lords -Grenville and Spencer, does not, in reality, express any doubt as to the dispostion of those noble lords, who are, by these wrangling pamphleteers, represented in a light, which is extremely injurious to the character of these noblemen, especially when they are, by the Near Observer, stated to have looked upon a return to office with Mr. Pitt as repayment for the call which they made in his behalf, at the opening of the session of parliament, and which call never was, at any time, made by Lord Spencer; and, as it is well known, that Lord Melville was, at one time, actually taking some steps with a view to his being lodged at the Admiralty, it is evident, that, before the negotiation broke off, Lord Spencer was well known to object to the proposition. But, I think it necessary to state here (and I call upon the partisans of either Mr. Addington or Mr. Pitt to contradict me if they can), that neither Lord Spencer, nor Lord Grenville, ever, either directly or indirectly, signified his wish, er bis consent, to make part of the proposed ministry

Why Mr. Pitt should be anxious to have with him the Lords Spencer and Grenville has already been suggested; but it is necessary to take some notice of the reason alledged by his advocate and eulogist, the Accurate Observer, that “ Mr.

Pitt had no inclination, whether from dis"approbation of their general measures, or "from objection to any of the steps taken "in the negotiation with France, to take "office merely as an accession to the pre"sent administration." He never was asked; it is not pretended, on either side, that it ever was proposed to him to take office as an "accession" to the present administration. The Near Observer declares, that Mr. Pitt, Lord Melville, and several other noble and honourable persons, the

friends of Mr. Pitt, were, by Mr. Adding ton, proposed to be admitted, not upon an equality with himself, but beyond it. As this speaks loodly in favour of Mr. Ad dington, and as it has not been contradicted by Mr. Pitt's partizan, it is but fair to conclude that it is true. Mr. Pitt was never, then, asked to come in as an "accession." But, the reasons given for his objection so to do, appear to me to be far from satisfactory: these are," his disapprobation of their

general measures, and his objection to "some of the steps taken in the negotiation "with France." As it is the talent of Mr. Pitt so it seems to be that of his defender, to wrap himself round in terms which will bear any meaning, or, if necessary, no meaning at all. What is meant by general measures? Does this phrase mean measures in general? Or measures of a general nature? Or measures general in their effect? There is no catching him: he slips through your fingers like an eel; and then you stand and stare as I now do, knowing not what to say, or what to think. If, however, by "general measures" are meant, the great measures of the cabinet, such as the convention with the Northern Powers; the Preliminaries of Peace with France; the Definitive Treaty with that power; the great measures of Finance, and particularly the Consolidation of the Funds, which took place in the summer of 1802; if those were the general measures" of the ministry, then, I say, that, instead of disapprobation, Mr. Pitt had bestowed, on all and on each of them, his unqualified approbation, sanctioned, in every instance, by a solemn vote! The Accurate Observer does, indeed, speak of Mr. Pitt's approving of the treaty of "Amiens, with all the qualifications which "accompanied that approval;" and, for a sight of all these qualifications, he refers us to the parliamentary debates of the 3rd of November, 1801, a reference which we shall certainly save ourselves the trouble of making, when we reflect, that the treaty of Amiens was not concluded till six months after the date of the said debates. On the Preliminary Treaty Mr. Pitt did, indeed, make a very long speech, on the 3d of November, 1801; and that he qualified his expressions one may, without any reference to the speech, venture to allow; for what expression did he ever utter without an accompanying qualification? But, is it fair to consider as qualified, that approval which is the general tenor of a speech, and which is, at last, confirmed by a vote? Mr. Pitt did, as I stated in p. 846, declare that the preliminary treaty afforded

"matter of joy and exultation to the coun

try, and entitled the government [that is "the ministers] to its warmest approbation

and most grateful thanks." Yet we are now reminded of all the qualifications which accompanied this approval !"—— During all the discussions on the treaty of Amiens Mr. Pitt spoke only three times; once for the purpose of thwarting the new opposition by shortening the duration of the debates; the second time to interrupt the argument of Mr. Windham by calling him to order in the midst of his speech;† and the third time to oppose an adjournment of the debate, because he was "ready to vote "for the amended address, and because he "was perfectly satisfied the arguments so "ably and successfully urged by his noble friend," Lord Hawkesbury. Where, then, are we to look for all the qualifications," with which Mr. Pitt gave his approval to the treaty of Amiens? And where, too, are we to look for an apology for the writer, who now endeavours to make the world believe in the existence of such qualifications? Yet it is but too true, and it is a fact, which one cannot reflect on without sorrow, that the work of the Accurate Observer, went to the press from beneath the eye, and with the approbation of Mr. Pitt! Nor will the other ground of Mr. Pitt's reluctance to enter the cabinet as an 66 "cession," be found to be more solid; for though some of the steps taken in the ne

66

ac

gotiation with France," might be unwise enough, what objection could he have to them, which must not, at any rate, have been of weight greatly inferior to the objections, which experience had proved to exist against the general measures of ministers, which measures he had approved of? Why, too, it may be asked, as to all the measures, whether general or particular, to which he objected, did he never come to make his objections in parliament, the only place where he could constitutionally give his advice; the place where duty to his constituents and his Sovereign bade him appear, and openly object to that which, in the conduct of ministers, he conscientiously regarded as objectionable? "His health."

and important duties out of the house; that health would not permit him to come to parliament once to point out the dangers, to which the measures of ministry were ex posing the nation!But, it seems, "Mr.Addington knew of Mr. Pitt's decided "disapprobation of some of his principal

"that

measures, before this overture" for a

coalition] " was made."-Mr. Addington knew of it !! Without stopping, at present, to make an inquiry as to what principal measures took place between June, 1802, and March, 1803, we may surely be permitted to ask, how Mr. Addington came to know of Mr. Pitt's decided disapprobation of those measures? And whether this assertion does not most fully corroborate the suspicions, which many persons openly professed to entertain, of an improper, and even an unconstitutional, influence, having, for some time, at least, been exercised by the late minister over his successor; and whether, the decided disapprobation" of the former was not expressed, the moment that the latter ventured to throw aside his leading strings, and to attempt to support himself by his own strength? This was assuredly the fact; and December, 1802, was the time when the schism, or rather the coolness took place; but, the minister, finding war to be inevitable, "evidently wished," as the Accurate Observer states, "for the "assistance of Mr. Pitt to support his go "vernment." This wish led to the negotiation of Lord Melville, and that negotiation to the rupture, which put an end, for ever I hope, to a cabinet influence unchecked by even the appearance of responsibility.--So necessary, however, does the Accurate Ob server regard the assistance of Mr. Pitt, in this time of difficulty and danger, that he wishes him to have condescended to enter the cabinet, upon almost any terms; "but," he adds, "it was surely for him to appreciate "the talents and qualifications of those, "with whom he was to risk his character. "None can question his right to determine

66

upon this point for himself." Generally speaking this doctrine is perfectly just: in common cases no one would question this right but, was this a common case? Was it not, in the month of March, 1803, somes what late for Mr. Pitt to begin to appreciate the talents and qualifications of Mr. Addington, Lord Hawkesbury, and their colleagues? After having lived with the principal per sons of them during half his life; after ha ving, at the end of that time, publicly pronounced on them, individually and collec tively, as men and as ministers, a lofty and premeditated eulogium; after having claimed

and obtained for them the confidence of the Parliament and the country; after all this, it was, methinks, somewhat late to start doubts and objections as to their talents and qualifications, and to entertain fears of what bis character might suffer in their company; in the company of men, whom to have "re"commended to his Majesty's councils" his advocate imputes to him as a merit! A merit, for having placed the power of the state, the honour of the crown, and the happines of the people, at the mercy of those, with whom he is afraid to "risk" his own individual reputation! A merit for refusing to trust himself in the cabinet with those very men, whom he had introduced, whom he had intruded, whom he had thrusted, into the closet of his Sovereign !* [To be continued.]

* Since the former part of this View ap peared, there has been published, in some of the daily prints, a certificate, signed by the bookseller of the CURSORY REMARKS, stating that he has "not disposed of a single

66

copy of that work by order, or on account "of, the Treasury." Now, I ask Mr. Hiley Addington if it was candid to make this poor man sign such a paper? "The Treasury!" Is it possible, that the "right hon. relation" can hope to ride off upon this? Will the bookseller solemnly declare, that no civil spoken gentleman bought 750 copies of him. in one, or, at most, in two bargains? Will he solemnly declare, that two book-binders' boys did not go down to the General PostOffice, some time in October last, loaded with Cursory Remarks?---The charge is called libellous. What! is it libellous to say, that the Treasury purchases pamphlets wholesale, and circulates them through the General Post-Office? Perhaps, then, Mr. Hiley Addington would deny that the Treasury purchased and circulated the Vindication of the Convention with Russia, a pamphlet containing a most false and fulsome eulogium on Lord Hawkesbury? Perhaps he would deny, that Mr. Shury was paid by the Treasury for printing the PILOT, a work, the stupidity and falsehoods of which soon .sent it to the grave, but which, while it existed, was filled, one half with praises of the Addingtons, and the other half with the most loathsome abuse of Lord Grenville and Mr. Windham? Perhaps he would deny, that the Treasury had any share in circulating these publications; but I am sure he will not deny, that he himself, who was then a Secretary of the Treasury, had some hand in it; and, therefore, the evasive certificate, signed by the poor bookseller, will, with the

INTELLIGENCE.

FOREIGN. The report of a negotiation among the principal neutral powers of the continent, for the restoration of peace, is still repeated in the papers which have been last received from there.--The dispute between the Emperor of Germany and the Elector of Bavaria, which was caused by the sudden expulsion of a small detachment of Imperial troops, from Oberhaus, by a body of Bavarian troops, has been amicably adjusted.The loan of three millions which General Berthier lately exacted of the Hanse-towns, was raised for the service of Hanover, upon the security of the property of the King of England, which remains in the Electorate. [To be continued.]

readers of the Register, appear as just so much waste paper. -The Treasury not only does, but it ought to employ the press; and, the only question, in any case, is, whether it employs it properly, or not; a question, which, in the present instance, I have not agitated, having only stated the fact, and that for the purpose, not of reproaching the minister with having availed himself of the advantages of his office to circulate an attack upon his party opponent, but merely for that of throwing light on the subject, in the discussion of which I was engaged. How comes it, then, that my statement of this fact should not be noticed till now, it having been first made more than two months ago? And how comes it, too, that my statement only should meet with a denial, such as it is, while no notice whatever is taken of a similar statement made by the Accurate Observer, at the very outset of his pamphle', where he not only says, that the Secretaries of the Treasury have assisted in the circulation of the Cursory Remarks, but that "they lend "their name and authority to the principal "statements it contains, and express their "sense of the propriety of its publication ?" The truth is, that Mr. Addington now begins to feel, that he cannot, without the support of Mr. Pitt, resist the force, which is, at last, both in and out of Parliament, gathering together against him; and, as he must be aware of the resentment that the Cursory Remarks have excited, and, in some degree, justly excited, in the breast of Mr. Pitt, he is anxious to exculpate himself from the imputation of having lent his aid to that pubfication; and, in this hopeful enterprize, a bookseller has not been thought unworthy of being pressed into the service!

SUMMARY OF POLITICS. AMERICA. By a reference to p. SSO et seq., it will be seen, that, in consequence of a convention between the United States of America and France, the former obtained the right of possessing Louisiana; but, we now learn, from American papers and letters, that the Spaniards refuse to evacuate New Orleans and the other parts, which they are in actual possession of; and, in fact, that, though they were ready, though an order was issued from the Court of Ma. drid, to give up the country to the French, they are by no means disposed to yield it to the Americans. This is very strange; so strange, that were not the fact confirmed in the best possible way, every one acquainted with the degraded state of the Spanish power would hesitate to believe it; and, it is absolutely impossible to suppose, that the Spaniards are now making this resistance, unabetted or unbacked by some other power. Is it impossible that our ministers have bethought themselves of some trick relative to Louisiana? And are we to look upon this resistance on the part of Spain as the price of neutrality with respect to GreatBritain? This would be curious enough; but, the probable conjecture is, that the French are resolved not to yield the country till after they are paid, and, perhaps, not even then. They have, very likely, only made a sham transfer of it to America, in order to cover it from the hands of GreatBritain, till the war is over, and the obstacle; now raised against the Americans taking possession, is, most probably, only intended to amuse the people of America, till the end of the war, or for a year or two, at least. A short time will, however, show us the bottom of this artifice.

THE CONTINENT appears to be alarmed at the increase of the power of France. In Russia a small augmentation of the army has taken place, and there is some talk of hostile preparations on the part of the Court of Vienna; but, even if the dispositions and preparations of those courts were ten times as great as they are, there would be no hope of obtaining their co-operation against France, while England is governed by a ministry, in whom no foreigner upon the face of the earth has any confidence. Though Russia may be jealous of, and displeased with France, it will require diplomatic skill, other than that possessed by Lord Hawkesbury, to persuade that power to embark in a war, the ostensible object of which is, to give us Malta in perpetuity. For this reaon it is, that the Moniteur (of the 8th in

"You

stant) so confidently declares to us : "shall not retain Malta; you shall not ob"tain Lampedosa, and you shall sign a "treaty less advantageous to you than that "of Amiens!" This is a threat much more terrible than that of invasion, and a threat, too, which, if the present ministry remain in power, or if the Volunteer System be persisted in, will most assuredly be carried into execution. The public prints are flattering themselves, that, because the Moniteur denies that the Consul has ever pledged himself to invade England, and because that paper now states, that he only said he would form camps along the coast; this has led our small politicians to conclude that the Consul is drawing in his horns." "As alluding to the improved state of Buonaparte's conjugal concerns, this may be considered as a passable pun; but, really, it would be difficult for any rational man to discover, in these expressions of the Moniteur, any hope of having broken or lowered the spirit of our enemy. What does Buonaparté want to do more than he is now doing? What state, if he could have his utmost wishes; what state, worse than our present state, could he, as yet, desire to see us in? Penned up in our island; trembling at his threats; preparing to fortify our capital, and to inundate our counties; giving bounties of 40 guineas a man for soldiers; having 400,000 of our shop-keepers armed, and the greater part of them under the controul of committees; with "the spirit of rebellion and "insurrection actually raging in Ireland," to such a degree as to require the terrors of martial law to keep them down; without being able to make one war-like effort, living at a war expenditure of £42,000.000 a year, in addition to £26,000,000 a year expenses of public debt, civil list, and miscellanies; and, though last not least, with Mr. Addington and Lord Hawkesbury for ministers; what more, what worse, what greater calamity and disgrace could even Buonaparté have wished

us ? It is incredible, that he should have hoped, so soon to have reduced us to this state; and, yet, there are persons who be lieve, or affect to believe, that he is disheartened!

IRELAND.-It appears, that the following paragraph has been inserted in all the Dublin news-papers." In the report given in

66

some of the newspapers of the debate of "the army estimates, it is said to have been "asserted by Mr. Fox," that it was well

"known that General Fox made more pre

parations against the insurrection of the "23d of July than the lord lieutenant